Experts Debate
Impact of
Intelligent Design Ruling

by Mary Ann Sullivan

HARRISBURG, Pa. – The Dover
intelligent design decision may not be appealed, but its effects will be felt
for some time to come, experts agreed. In a Dec. 20 ruling, Judge John Jones of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania said a school
board's requirement that intelligent design be mentioned in a science classroom
violated the First Amendment. Jones' 139-page decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover
Area School District called intelligent design "a religious alternative
masquerading as a scientific theory."

Proponents of intelligent design
say there are gaps in evolutionary theory which can be better explained
scientifically by their theory which holds that there is a design and purpose
inherent in life forms which spring from an unnamed intelligence. Michael
Behe, a Catholic and a biochemist at Lehigh University, had testified in defense
of the school district. He is author of the book Darwin's Black Box
(1996, Free Press). Behe said the ruling "slaps a label on intelligent design
that I think is inappropriate. It calls it religious. I disagree. Although it
has religious implications it's based on scientific data and therefore is a
scientific idea."

The judge's decision is binding
only on a small region of Pennsylvania but has national implications. Defense
Attorney Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law
Center of Ann Arbor, Mich. said, "Even though the judge's opinion only covers
the Dover Area School District and has no value in other districts in terms of
precedent, other courts can look at the decision to see if it is persuasive or
not and adopt any thinking processes that the judge used." Rob Boston, assistant
director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and
State, which represented the plaintiffs in Federal District Court, agreed with
Thompson that the judicial effect is far reaching, but for the opposite reason.
"This decision sends a strong signal that the federal courts will regard
intelligent design with great skepticism," he said.

Thompson adamantly insisted that
Jones was unfair, saying, "The judge's ruling cries out for appeal." However, it
is unlikely the case will be appealed. The original school board named in the
case was voted out of office in November, and the new board is not inclined to
revisit the issue. In fact, in a vote Jan. 3, the new members ditched the
requirement to mention intelligent design. "This is theophobia, a fear of God,"
Thompson said, explaining that students in the district will now think evolution
is a fact and that mankind was a result of blind fate or chance.

"The judge's ruling was astounding
in this regard." said Thompson. "On page 138 of his decision, he specifically
prohibits the denigration and disparagement of the theory of evolution. In other
words, he said the theory of evolution is sacrosanct. We cannot have any
criticism of it, which in effect makes that theory orthodoxy and dogma, the very
concepts the Supreme Court says we cannot officially establish."

But Kenneth Miller, a Catholic and
author of the book Finding Darwin's' God (1999, Cliff Street Books), and
who testified on behalf of the plaintiffs, said the judge "made a great decision
for religion." Miller said his book is used in scores of public school
classrooms, and will continue to be used. "My book clearly deals with
theological ideas which are considered and will continue to be considered in
science classrooms." He thinks the 'problem with intelligent design is the
tactic it uses. "Intelligent design portrays a theistic alternative to an
anti-theistic evolution," Miller said. "In other words, it puts these two ideas
in direct opposition to each other. It gives young people the message that they
must either abandon their faith to accept scientific evidence for evolution or
turn their back on science to maintain their faith. That's a terrible message to
give to young people."

Casey Luskin, an attorney from the
Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a think tank on technology, science and
culture, thinks Miller's portrayal of intelligent design is misinformed.
"Intelligent design is not an argument for God or about creation he said.
"Intelligent design is a scientific theory that says we can see life is the
result of intelligence. When we look at a cell, we see digitally-encoded
information, an information processing system more complex than any computer
program ever written. We see micro machines on the nano scale. [People who study
intelligent design] who look at this say, 'We see the result of an intelligent
cause.'" Luskin thinks the judge's ruling will have negligible impact on public
school classrooms where individual teachers at their own discretion are already
teaching intelligent design. Though the effect on individual classrooms might be
insignificant, the decision sends a strong message to school boards across the
nation.

Lee Strang, a professor at Ave
Maria School of Law, said, "If school boards out there want to get intelligent
design into their classrooms, they need-to be much more circumspect. They need
to present it as another scientific view of how different species came to exist
in our world, and not as ‘I want religion back in the classroom."'

Mary O'Keefe Daly, a science
teacher with a Catholic home school learning cooperative in eastern South Dakota
and author of the book Creator and Creation (hedgeschool.homestead.com/ordering.html),
believes there should be a comprehensive account of creation that takes both
science and theology very seriously. Nevertheless, she found Jones' decision
harsh and biased. "It is disappointing that it was so sweeping and so insulting,
particularly since the actual demand of the school board did not seem to exclude
information about Darwinism, as the Darwinians demand exclusion of their
opposition."

Looking on the brighter side, Behe
admitted, "One good thing that came out of it is that more people are aware of
the idea of intelligent design, and since most people are not students in high
school they are free to think whatever they want on the topic." Luskin, too, is
convinced this issue will continue to impact society for years to come. "A
judicial ruling cannot change the fact that there is a digital code in our DNA,"
he said. "It cannot remove empirical facts of biology. The idea that life was
designed will not change because of a legal decree. This debate is not over."